Georgia Bowling Enterprises, Inc. v. Robbins, 38719

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: FELTON
• Citation: Georgia Bowling Enterprises, Inc. v. Robbins, 119 S.E.2d 52, 103 Ga.App. 286 (Ga. App. 1961)
• Decision Date: 08 March 1961
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 38719,38719,1
• Parties: GEORGIA BOWLING ENTERPRISES, INC. v. B. W. ROBBINS, by Next Friend

Page 52

119 S.E.2d 52

103 Ga.App. 286

GEORGIA BOWLING ENTERPRISES, INC. v. B. W. ROBBINS, by Next Friend.

No. 38719.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

March 8, 1961.

Syllabus by the Court.

An owner of premises is liable in damages to a guest for injuries inflicted on the guest by the tortious act of another guest when the owner has reason to anticipate the misconduct of the guest inflicting the injury.

This action is brought by the plaintiff who is three years old, through his mother, as next friend, against the defendant, a corporation engaged in the business of operating bowling alleys. By the petition, as amended, the plaintiff alleges that the plaintiff's mother and father went upon the defendant's premises as invitees for the purpose of bowling; that the defendant maintains and supervises for the accommodation and convenience of its customers a nursery where children may be placed while their parents bowl; that the plaintiff was placed for safe keeping in said nursery and while therein was struck about the head by the wife of the manager of the defendant bowling alley; that the manager's wife was known to be of a high tempered nature and that the defendant knew or should have known of her disposition; that the defendant failed to give proper protection to prevent injury to the plaintiff; that the manager's wife had been ordered to stay away from the nursery because of previous outbursts of temper and the striking of other children therein; that as a result of the assault committed upon the plaintiff, he sustained whelps and bruises, resulting in physical pain and suffering.

To the petition the defendant filed its general demurrer and with leave of the court the plaintiff amended his petition. The demurrer was overruled. The case proceeded to trial and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $1,970. The defendant moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict which was overruled. Thereupon, the defendant filed its motion for a new trial on the general grounds and on two special grounds, all of which were overruled by the court. It is to these rulings that the defendant excepts.

Perry, Walters & Langstaff, Jesse W. Walters, Albany, for plaintiff in error.

J. Neely Peacock, Jr., Albany, for defendant in error.

FELTON, Chief Judge.

The petition, as amended, set forth a cause of action in that it stated that the owner of a place of recreation failed to exercise ordinary care in the protection of the plaintiff guest against the misconduct of another guest. Adamson v. Hand, 93 Ga.App. 5, 90 S.E.2d 669. In addition, the defendant assigns as error the overruling of that portion of its demurrer directed at two paragraphs of the plaintiff's petition. Such assignment of error is without merit, for after the defendants demurred the plaintiff amended his petition in the particulars demurred to and in so doing he cured any defect which may have existed in the original petition. Especially is this true when the demurrer is not renewed...